Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v. Comalco Ltd [1986] FCA 381

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v. Comalco Ltd [1986] FCA 381

The Federal Court allowed the appeal in part. It found several of the pleaded imputations were not established in the programme. Other imputations were defamatory and published by the appellant. The appellant was not entitled to qualified privilege, as there was no sufficient social or moral duty to publish to a national audience, and in any event, malice was established. The defence of fair comment failed as all facts relied upon had not been proved true. Damages were reduced as not all imputations were sustained and there was no injury beyond business reputation.

Parties
Appellant: Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Respondent: Comalco Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Appeal Defamation / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Fair Comment, Damages, Defamatory Imputations, Mitigation of Damages, Trading Corporation Reputation
Defamation Media Law Qualified Privilege Fair Comment Damages Defamatory Imputations Mitigation of Damages Trading Corporation Reputation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Appellant

Comalco Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Defamation / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was liable for the publication of defamatory material in a television programme;
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege attached to the publication;
  3. 3 Whether the defence of fair comment was available;

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court allowed the appeal in part. It found several of the pleaded imputations were not established in the programme. Other imputations were defamatory and published by the appellant. The appellant was not entitled to qualified privilege, as there was no sufficient social or moral duty to publish to a national audience, and in any event, malice was established. The defence of fair comment failed as all facts relied upon had not been proved true. Damages were reduced as not all imputations were sustained and there was no injury beyond business reputation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment varied

Orders

  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory awarding Comalco Limited damages in the sum of $295,000 varied by substituting the sum of $100,000;
  • Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal in the Federal Court;